> what no one seems to have done is pick up the real challenge of the
 > original
 > question that started this thread and speculate about whether and
 > how and how
 > much movies, images, oictures, can THEMSELVES lie or at least be
 > only partially
 > true and thus very partial . . .
 
The problem with having visual images lie is that it wouldn't be filmmaking
anymore.  It'd be belittled to nothing less than propaganda making a cheap
attempt at fooling a smart audience.  However, there are many examples where we
perceive what the camera shows us as a lie.  This isn't so, as we are merely
just looking at whatever angle the camera happens to be at.  I can't think of
any noteworthy examples, but all of us have seen an image that we think is
something, until the camera pans out and it is something else entirely.
 
The point is, if we let the camera do whatever it wishes, it lowers the
standard of filmmaking.  If we allow such methods, then anything can be made
into a movie. And that isn't so.
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]